I don't want to take away from our favourite pastime, but...we should not lose perspective: whether nude or non-nude, it is always rude to take a stranger's photograph and post it without their knowledge and permission. Technically, if you want to use a photo of someone else, you should ask them to sign a release form. Isn't it the transgression of these boundaries of privacy that makes one a voyeur?
I enjoy these shots, don't get me wrong!! But there is also something exciting when you know that someone is willingly sharing their own naked image, for example on photobucket....
Quote:
Originally Posted by Klondike
On the eve of the first WNBR weekend of the year, I found this commentary on the rider-photographer relationship from a RIDER'S point of view. This came up in a SF-WNBR discussion group. Read on, especially if you are contemplating attending a ride as a photographer. I found it quite interesting....
I think that some of us are losing sight of the 'bigger picture'
> here. The purpose of the nudity in this and other similar protests is
> to gain attention to the cause. This includes photographers, and yes -
> posting the pics on the internet. Your participation in the event is
> essentially tantamount to releasing your image into the public
> domain. We thank you for that. And their participation in the event
> is CRUCIAL to making the event an effective means of reaching the
> public's attention. If a tree falls in the forest, and no one is
> there to see it ...
>
> It's a slippery slope to start assigning values and motives to various
> photographers - some you like, some you don't. These things are out
> of our collective hands. As for "prurient" or "pornographic" matters,
> let's face it - not many people are that much of a turn-on. Those
> that are more fit and young and attractive will garner more attention
> than those that are perhaps older or plumper. Ever has it been thus.
> But yet we thank everybody for their participation equally.
>
> There are also (usually) photographers and participants
> from 'clothesfree.com' - another "for profit" website, yet they don't
> seem to create the same level of resentment - presumably because
> their 'bent' is geared to the naturist lifestyle. So one group's
> motives are perceived as more pure than the other, yet they're both
> doing the same thing. Who wants to volunteer as hall monitor for
> which photographers are "okay" and which are spurned? Who wants to
> create an ugly scene with recriminations and public opprobrium?
>
> I'll pass. Me? I'm going to participate in the event with full
> knowledge that people are photographing the event and that I have zero
> control over how these photos are distributed. Through the past few
> years, the demeanor and comportment of the participants are one of the
> most remarkable aspects of this event. Everybody's cool and there
> doesn't seem to be a lot of tension or edginess. It's upbeat - let's
> keep it that way and not get caught up in petty squabbles about the
> photographers.
>
> Some one said it earlier and of course it's absolutely true - if you
> don't wish to be photographed naked in public, don't get naked in
> public. But if you do, do not presume to be able to dictate who can
> or cannot take photos - or create public scenes about inappropriate
> behavior while you're standing naked in the middle of the city.
>
> Let's have some fun while we're changing the world. Looking forward
So there you have it - a very reasoned and intelligent analysis. Bikers can 1) expect to be photographed, 2) not have any control over what happens to the pics and 3) not pick and choose who does and doesn't have the right to take pics...
i think I knew this anyway, but its good to hear it from a riders point of view.
KLondike
> to it.
|